search_bitbucket

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description solely indicates this is a search (read) operation. It does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or result format. Minimum behavioral info is provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point, fitting for a simple search tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite simplicity, the description lacks context about return values, pagination behavior, or whether authentication is required. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, more completeness is expected.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Search query for Bitbucket repositories' and 'Maximum number of results to return').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Search Bitbucket repositories and code', specifying verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_gitlab, which also searches repositories and code. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_gitlab. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.